Do the Kansas City Chiefs need to change too?

Acceptable and legal are two different things.

Exactly.

And let's not pretend that this is in regard to anything important like gay marriage, or abortion, or sending more troops to Iraq; it's a flippin' sports team mascot. If 10% of the American Indian population is offended (a number that is probably skewed, but let's just go with it), just shut up and change it already.

Out of the blue? Wasn't it you who pointed out on page 1 of this thread that a case has already been heard about the team's name, and that this has been an ongoing issue for 2 decades?

The team was founded in 1933. The first documented protest was in 1988 and the first legal action was in 1992. I would have to say leaving something undisturbed for 55 years with little to no action from any organized force is "out of the blue."

In an effort to point out that the decision of this Board is almost certainly going to be overturned either at the District Court level or beyond.

Because a small minority of a minority is offended by something is not a good enough reason to deny this NFL Franchise equal protection under the law.

For the record, it is 10% of the limited number of people polled and there is a possible issue with the cultural and ethnic identities of the people polled.


"Out of the blue" works better for his argument. :) This is a team that was established in 1932 and there have always been people who deemed their use of "redskins". Always. If GCers know what was happening with American Indian populations in 1932 and the difficulty faced by populations in the 1930s-2010s we understand why there weren't massive protests and media speak outs until the 1980s-2010s.

I wish your flawed logic could be used for other protests:

Women didn't file a formal grievance for centuries, why should we combat patriarchy, sexism, and violence against women over the past 100 years?! That's "out of the blue"! :mad:

Black people? I shall hear no complaints from you. I saw you picking that cotton, going to the back of the bus, doing the Jim Crow, and responding to "colored, negro, and nigger" for years. Why didn't you at least call the local paper and get your voices heard? :confused:

Various Asian and Hispanic cultures and ethnicities? Scoff. I remember the different waves of immigrants. You seemed anxious to get to the USA many generations ago. We had no idea you were facing unfair treatment. You didn't tellll anyone. :(

Let us not even mention LGBTQ. The way these grievances have received attention over the past years, you would think this is a brand new group of people. Who would've thought people with varying sex and gender identities have existed and been marginalized for centuries. I can't find any old complaints on Google. :eek:

Beat me to it. But Kevin's use of "equal protection under the law" was a nice touch, I thought.

Again, your basis for asserting it's only a "small minority" is . . . ?

And again, I would suggest that understanding the history behind the team name—which was originally the Boston Braves and was connected to the Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves baseball team—is instructive.

Exactly.

And Dan Snyder bought the team in 1999. To claim that this is "out of the blue" is laughable. He knew (or at least he should have known) what he was potentially getting into.

Kevin, you're claiming that everyone is suddenly being too politically correct, when in fact, this has been going on for nearly 25 years. But now with social media and a 24 hour news cycle, we're hearing more about it. These groups are getting louder, as they should if they find the team's name offensive. I won't pretend to know the ins and outs of the legality of the decision regarding the patent, but to claim that a) the objections to the team name are "out of the blue", 2) that people aren't allowed to be offended, and 3) the percentage of people who are offended should determine whether or not the name is changed is ridiculous.

If not even the majority of the minority (in this case a very small sliver) of the whole population are not offended, then their views carry a lot less legitimacy. It doesn't matter how loud they get. They are trying by force of law to force an organization to do something which is going to cost it lots of money.

When Snyder bought the team, he should be been more-less entitled to rely on the fact that the courts had already or would soon already resolve things in his favor. Just about every legal analysis out there says this is going to be resolved in the team's favor yet again.

I can't understand why no one is at least equally up in arms that the Redskins are having to relitigate something which should be res judicata because some tiny sliver of a population was able to curry favor with the right Washington bureaucrats.

I think this question actually has pros and cons, whereas the Redskins does not. Chiefs are actual people and not necessarily disparaging. It COULD be considered a nod of respect.

Because of sensitivity on this issue, I think it probably should be but it's not black and white like a racial slur is. My opinion of course.

The bolded portion is mine. Would you take issue with the NAACP trademark being denied? The "C" stands for colored, which would also be considered disparaging, correct?

Tell me again what happens when we let the majority determine the rights of the minority?

I think there's probably a reason why the acronym is used far more commonly. Did you know AT&T no longer officially stands for anything? It is no longer an acronym. Using that as a correlation, if Washington wanted to change their name to the Washington Rs and change the logo, hey I'm cool with that.

But on the issue of the NAACP, they must have made a statement addressing this issue at one time or another. If I'm quiet at work this afternoon I'll have to see if I can find something.

That is not how it works.

It is extremely sad that you think you can give people permission to be offended. It is extremely sad that you think you get to weigh the legitimacy of offense. You technically do not even get to do that for fellow white people and you definitely do not get to do that for people other races and ethnicities.

You have been told this before so it is clear you intend to maintain your ignorance.

I choose to believe he's just trolling and not THIS willfully ignorant.

No.

I am involved with the NAACP and know very well what the "C" stands for. This is definitely not the same as what is being discussed in this thread. If you think it is the same, you are not familiar with the NAACP.

Once again, Kevin, what's your source for this? You keep saying it, but you have yet to back it up.

I am referring specifically to the trademark, not its usage in general. The Redskins aren't being forced to stop using the team name, they just can't protect it under trademark. How is that not exactly the same as the NAACP? The NAACP would be free to continue to use the name, as it is and always has been used in a positive context that is not offensive to most people. But, should they be allowed to continue to trademark it? After all, once you give the government that power to make the "disparaging" determination, won't they be pressed to exercise it evenly? Doesn't that give the government way more power than they should have? It takes away our right to determine which things offend and which do not.

Yes and the difference is the NAACP is an organization founded by Black Americans, for Black Americans, and remains as such in 2014. Therefore, Black Americans have had discussions and will continue to have discussions about the relevance of the name at the time it was founded and today. There is no need for protest or trademark dispute.

If the Washington Redskins was founded by and for American Indians, either the name would have never been used or issues with the name probably would have been handled many years ago.

You cannot discuss this without discussing the usage in general.

Certainly you see the difference between 1) a group of white people using what is considered a racial slur against American Indians; and 2) a predominantly Black organization using a word for a specific reason and continuing to use the word in the predominantly Black organization's name despite internal debate as a reminder to never forget from whence we came, out of respect for the context of the founding, and (some would argue) respect for the different races and ethnicities ("colors") of people who have worked with and been served by the NAACP.

Debating whether there should be a trademark issue with the NAACP is silly when the context is completely different and the internal discussions regarding the use of "colored" in NAACP has not led to trademark concerns. Therefore this is a moot issue and if you don't see the difference, I must respectfully ask you to sit over there with Kevin.

Trademark decisions are not the government telling us when to be offended. ;) You want to debate the government trademark issue and I only care about people being able to fight against what they deem offensive. The legality of that is for the legal people to battle.

I very much see the difference between the Redskins and the NAACP in terms of usage. I am concerned with arming the government with discretion in this type of matter. If the government interprets this, they would be forced to treat the NAACP the same way, even though the context is clearly different. These should be social issues, and beyond the grasp of the government. People and companies have a right to be stupid, ignorant, racist, sexist, whatever. They will be treated accordingly by society and the free market. The government should not be defining what is or is not offensive.

Actually you have it backwards. Here we have a sliver of a segment of a minority determining the rights of the Redskins franchise by having better connections in a certain D.C. office.

The argument against the Redskins trademark rests on the fact that it was offensive AT THE TIME IT WAS ISSUED and therefore never should have been issued. I don't think you could argue the same for the 'C' in NAACP, and that would be the difference, in the eyes of the law.

In 1933, what protests were there about the name of the organization?

I'll ask a fourth time, Kevin: What's your basis for saying it's "a sliver of a segment"?

I don't think this is true. The Redskin case is a renewal. Why would it matter if it was offensive decades ago to a current renewal? Granted I work in tax law and not trademark law, but this argument might have some logic, but is unlikely to have any legal merit. Further, Dr Phil's post suggests that answering to "colored" was in the same category as sitting at the back of the bus, so wouldn't that mean it was always offensive?

Then make this argument without drawing a false analogy. ;)

See what happens with false analogies? People get confused and the point gets lost.

You need a history lesson. Seriously.


/sorry for triple post, too lazy to combine posts

I have no idea why that matters, but it's in the opinion. See the third paragraph here:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/us-patent...-redskins-name

Apparently.

Wouldn't a determination that the C in NAACP was disparaging come out of someone filing a complaint with the patent office, presumably someone affected by that disparagement? I mean, it's not like the patent office just woke up yesterday and decided "oh hay, Redskins is offensive! Let's look up all their trademarks and tell them to suck it!" Someone filed a complaint.

Also, general point: 1988 was 26 years ago. That's hardly "out of the blue."

Sorry I wasn't clear - obviously this opinion agrees with what you stated. I'm not disputing that is in the opinion. I'm just saying that it is another reason why I think the opinion won't hold up.

I saw this article posted on facebook and it made me think of this thread.

12 Trademarks Declared Less Offensive Than Redskins

Half & Half
 

I have to say that I am half and half about this situation. I see the side of both DrPhil and Kevin. If any of this is incorrect, please feel free to correct me. This reminds me of the Donald Sterling situation. Is the guy a racist? It would appear so. Has he probably made some disparaging remarks about marginalized populations? That is what has been reported. I do not personally know him, so I will not accuse anyone of anything. I have to admit that, while he may have said some incredibly disgusting things regarding African Americans, being forced to sell his team and having the NBA tell him he is banned from attending games is a bit extreme--in my eyes. Isn't the team a private entity? This is where I could be wrong, so please feel free to correct me if that is the case.

Now, we have the Washington Redskins. Once again, this can be quite offensive. In fact, it may just be coming to light in the last few years, as noted by DrPhil, because as a marginalized group of people, their voices have not been heard. While the name of the team is offensive, what I think Kevin is asserting is that no one should be able to tell someone who is a property owner of something privately owned what they should do with their team. If that is what he is saying, I have to agree.

This is a really sticky situation. On one hand, you want there to be justice for the marginalized group, whoever that may be. On the other hand, if we start allowing others to dictate what we do with our own privately-owned businesses, then where does it end? I am not saying I am for or against the name change. I am just saying that I can see how people would be on both sides of the coin.

The Sterling situation is different - the Clippers are a private organization that's part of another private organization, the NBA. So the NBA can do whatever the NBA wants to do w/r/t their code of conduct and standards for team owners.

The U.S. patent office is a government entity, yeah, but they're not *actually* forcing the NFL to act in this case, nor are they forcing the team to change their name. They're just declining to protect them from trademark infringement.

The decision doesn't say Snyder can't continue to call his team the Redskins and can't continue to use the team logos. What it does is say that the name and logo can't be trademarked, meaning Snyder can't do anything about it trademark-infringement-wise if you or I decide to start selling unlicensed Washington Redskins merchandise. So the argument would be that no one is telling Snyder what he can or can't do with his team. The message is that the government will not assist him in protecting a specific property right.

Like others, I have my doubts as to whether the decision will hold up. But I think the effort is a form of the time-honored American practice of trying to bring about change through economic incentive/pressure.

I also think there are two distinct issues here: the issue of the nickname itself and the issue of whether the PTO decision is legally correct. If the decision does turn out to be erroneous legally, that says nothing about whether the nickname is offensive and should be changed. It just means a trademark challenge was not a proper way to address the bigger issue.

ETA: Sorry. Cross-posted with agzg.

I no, I knew the U.S. patent office was a government entity. I'm saying that I wasn't sure if both the Clippers and Redskins are privately-owned teams. Thank you for clarifying that the Clippers are privately-owned. I didn't think the U.S. patent office was forcing the NFL to do anything. I'm saying that I question whether anyone should have the right to tell the owner of the Clippers or the owner of the Redskins what they should and shouldn't do.

Edit: After I posted to agzg, I saw MysticCat's post. This is why I said that you are all welcome to correct me as I do not know 100% what is going on. I won't claim to. I have to say that, if Kevin is insinuating that no one should try to force anyone into doing anything, which is what I thought he was saying (could be wrong), I partially agree with that. Thank you, MC for letting me know that it's more about protection of the name than anything. I think the Clippers and the Redskins, people have putting pressure on these owners based on how they feel. Now, I'm not saying those feelings aren't warranted. I'm just curious if we should allow other people, whether 10% of the entire population or 99%, dictate what we can and cannot do. That's all.

But, in the case of the Redskins, they're not telling them what they should do. They're telling them that they're not going to protect them from trademark infringement.

In the case of the Clippers, of course the NBA has the right to tell the owner of the Clippers what to do. The owner of the clippers either has the choice to do what they say or disaffiliate from the NBA. Like... I can either do what my GLO tells me to do or what I should do, or they can kick me out. Same thing.